5 ms·

There's no reason to believe this is true about the universe, but it is a fun idea to think about. We know so little about consciousness, intelligence, and the

by eloff 5y ago

There's no reason to believe this is true about the universe, but it is a fun idea to think about. We know so little about consciousness, intelligence, and the brain in general. It is amazing how much insects seem to accomplish with so little.

ddingus 5y ago
Just read past this again, and you probably won't see my reply, but our brief exchange had triggered another fleeting thought perhaps worth sharing. There is no reason to believe... I'm not sure what context you were speaking in, but I have a fairly conservative frame I work with, and that is we know almost nothing. The scientific method does bring us understanding and that's basically a monkey see, monkey do kind of thing where we understand doing a is going to yield b. Understanding is predictive to a point, and at that point, error exceeds understanding for whatever reason, and we simply don't understand enough to proceed, which drives new science and ultimately, new and improved understanding. None of that actually invalidates prior understanding. Where understanding is predictive, and it has been validated against the authority; namely, mother nature, it's good understanding! And that all means knowing the limits of understanding is as important as the understanding itself is. Applying our understanding outside it's scope can be worse than ignorance. Perhaps this is all well trodden ground for you, and I apologize in advance, but it did also highlight "reason to believe", and I just generally don't. For me, there just isn't a lot of room for "believe" in all this. Knowing things is a tall order. Confidence in understanding may just be a technical, formal expression of believing too. Where we lack understanding, it's a guessing game. We may make pretty good guesses, depending on what understanding we do have and our own nature, intuition and such, and that's fine, even ideal depending on what the scenario is. Maybe I would go down this road saying something more like, "I suspect" or "these ideas are suggestive", hinting at whatever basis I might have to give an idea greater weight or worth, but indeed! There is no reason to believe anything is true about the universe on basic principle, knowing our current limits and how we arrive at pretty much anything useful. Later, below you used "unlikely" which suggests to me we get after thoughts like this in a similar way, and it's OK if not, but somehow I felt compelled to just get these reasoning basics out there, out of my head. Happy New Year, and thanks in advance for entertaining me.
ddingus 5y ago
For sure. The significant point is we just don't know much about consciousness. Given that state of affairs, I find it useful to be aware of the various major, core ideas. Anything could lead us to some greater understanding. It is a fun idea to think about, like a field of sorts that can be tapped into.
- eloff 5y ago
  It's a fun idea, but a big stretch to imagine we're tapping into some field where that takes place completely outside the realm of the forces and particles we understand (but initiated from us in the realm of forces and particles we do understand.) Not impossible, just very, very unlikely.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    I tend to not give the various ideas much waiting right now. The reason I do that is we really don't know a damn thing about consciousness. For all we know there are new physics out there. The other idea that I find compelling, and this is my own idea, is get consciousness of some kind the organism or mechanism must be complex enough to differentiate itself very fully from the world around it. We may end up making a smart brain in the box, but I don't think it will become conscious, unless it is complex enough to be aware of itself completely. And I'm sorry I'm having a hard time articulating this this morning, but just think about your fingertip we've got nerves and everything going all the way down there so that the whole mechanism is a closed loop it's kind of like we're built to know what is us what is not us completely with high fidelity. I think we're going to find that is a requirement for a self to manifest or in some way defines a being from a mechanism. Mechanisms will not be conscious, beings will. In any case we're pretty ignorant right now, meaning that Consciousness is Magic, and we can talk about all sorts of stuff and not be out of bounds.

by eloff 5y ago

ddingus 5y ago

Just read past this again, and you probably won't see my reply, but our brief exchange had triggered another fleeting thought perhaps worth sharing. There is no reason to believe... I'm not sure what context you were speaking in, but I have a fairly conservative frame I work with, and that is we know almost nothing. The scientific method does bring us understanding and that's basically a monkey see, monkey do kind of thing where we understand doing a is going to yield b. Understanding is predictive to a point, and at that point, error exceeds understanding for whatever reason, and we simply don't understand enough to proceed, which drives new science and ultimately, new and improved understanding. None of that actually invalidates prior understanding. Where understanding is predictive, and it has been validated against the authority; namely, mother nature, it's good understanding! And that all means knowing the limits of understanding is as important as the understanding itself is. Applying our understanding outside it's scope can be worse than ignorance. Perhaps this is all well trodden ground for you, and I apologize in advance, but it did also highlight "reason to believe", and I just generally don't. For me, there just isn't a lot of room for "believe" in all this. Knowing things is a tall order. Confidence in understanding may just be a technical, formal expression of believing too. Where we lack understanding, it's a guessing game. We may make pretty good guesses, depending on what understanding we do have and our own nature, intuition and such, and that's fine, even ideal depending on what the scenario is. Maybe I would go down this road saying something more like, "I suspect" or "these ideas are suggestive", hinting at whatever basis I might have to give an idea greater weight or worth, but indeed! There is no reason to believe anything is true about the universe on basic principle, knowing our current limits and how we arrive at pretty much anything useful. Later, below you used "unlikely" which suggests to me we get after thoughts like this in a similar way, and it's OK if not, but somehow I felt compelled to just get these reasoning basics out there, out of my head. Happy New Year, and thanks in advance for entertaining me.

ddingus 5y ago

For sure. The significant point is we just don't know much about consciousness. Given that state of affairs, I find it useful to be aware of the various major, core ideas. Anything could lead us to some greater understanding. It is a fun idea to think about, like a field of sorts that can be tapped into.

eloff 5y ago
It's a fun idea, but a big stretch to imagine we're tapping into some field where that takes place completely outside the realm of the forces and particles we understand (but initiated from us in the realm of forces and particles we do understand.) Not impossible, just very, very unlikely.
- ddingus 5y ago
  I tend to not give the various ideas much waiting right now. The reason I do that is we really don't know a damn thing about consciousness. For all we know there are new physics out there. The other idea that I find compelling, and this is my own idea, is get consciousness of some kind the organism or mechanism must be complex enough to differentiate itself very fully from the world around it. We may end up making a smart brain in the box, but I don't think it will become conscious, unless it is complex enough to be aware of itself completely. And I'm sorry I'm having a hard time articulating this this morning, but just think about your fingertip we've got nerves and everything going all the way down there so that the whole mechanism is a closed loop it's kind of like we're built to know what is us what is not us completely with high fidelity. I think we're going to find that is a requirement for a self to manifest or in some way defines a being from a mechanism. Mechanisms will not be conscious, beings will. In any case we're pretty ignorant right now, meaning that Consciousness is Magic, and we can talk about all sorts of stuff and not be out of bounds.